Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the scoring dimensions, the staging output (GEM/WATCH/NOISE), the presence of reasons/warnings, and the round-trip tax cost. It does not go into data-freshness or rate-limit behavior, but for a read-oriented discovery tool this is reasonably transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three dense, purposeful sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then details the ranking output and criteria, and ends with a clear use case and follow-up routing. No sentence is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what the call returns. It does so: a 0-100 rank, GEM/WATCH/NOISE stage, reasons, warnings, and round-trip tax cost. It also covers when to use it and what to do next. It does not explicitly state that the result is a list or how ordering/limit behaves, but the description is sufficiently complete for a discovery tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond general output context; it does not explain how limit, category, quote_mint, min_holders, max_age_days, or max_market_cap_usd interact with the gem ranking. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find gems on StonkFun: reward coins that look early, real, and paying.' It clearly describes the tool's ranking output (0-100 score, GEM/WATCH/NOISE stages) and distinguishes it from siblings by positioning it as the entry-point discovery tool for StonkFun, with follow-ups explicitly delegated to trenches_check and stonk_reward_risk.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit use case: 'Use for "what should I look at on StonkFun right now?"' and provides clear follow-up guidance ('Follow up with trenches_check on a GEM and stonk_reward_risk before sizing'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the named follow-ups and context make selection straightforward.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.